“Death is not the greatest of ills: worse is to want to die and not be able to.” As Timothy Lace explains, euthanasia is best described as an act of mercy rather than murder. While the counter argument for euthanasia is to honor the preciousness of life, the argument for it seems much more valid: Every individual has a personal right to death. Those who strongly disagree with physician-assisted suicide have the option to not partake in it, while those who wish to end their suffering in a humane manner are trapped by both their illness and their inability to escape from it. Why should doctors, lawmakers, or anyone other than the individual have a say in his or her own death? Why should the pain and suffering of an individual be prolonged when their is an alternative? Why should we as human beings allow our rights to be infringed upon, especially when it comes to a decision as personal as death? The right to die, like the right to life, should be an unalienable right, one that cannot be transferred to another nor surrendered except by the person possessing it.
Proponents of euthanasia argue that each individual possesses one body, has a personal opinion on death, and therefore should choose when it is their time to surrender their body to the inevitable. Legality aside, when a person’s quality of life is compromised, the option to end life should be viewed as an “act of love.” Steve Lopez notes, in reference to the attempted murder of Beckie Wheeler by her husband, “If I ever get to where I don’t recognize the people I care about, I wouldn’t want to hang around. And I’d be grateful to any friend or family member who help me move on.” When a person is no longer themselves and cannot act on their own behalf due to a terminal illness, physician-assisted suicide can be considered an act of mercy. Euthanasia advocates maintain the stance that active voluntary euthanasia shows compassion towards the terminally ill, rather than inhumanely keep them alive to preserve life at all costs.
Chris Hill’s suicide letter is an incredibly powerful example of personal choice when it comes to the right to live or die. After a hang-gliding accident, Hill was paralyzed from the chest down, “more than three-quarters dead,” as he describes. “The Note,” his suicide letter, describes in detail his loss of dignity and self-respect and why he came to the decision to end his life. He writes in his letter that, “People kill animals to put them out of their misery if they’re suffering even a tiny part of what I had to put up with, but I was never given the choice of a dignified death.” One would argue that it is completely inhumane to give an animal a more dignified death than a human being who wishes nothing more than to be put out of their misery. As heartbreaking as his story is, the pain Hill suffered on a daily basis could only have been measured by him and ultimately it was his right to choose he to deal with it. As Chris Hill explains at the end of his letter, “Suicide is not a crime and I have the right not to be handled or treated against my will.”
Opponents of euthanasia will insist that taking someone’s life, whether it is their choice or not, is murder in the first degree, and immoral act in the eyes of God and society. The Catholic church’s Declaration on Euthanasia proclaims that “Human life is the basis of all goods and is the necessary source and condition of every human activity and of all society.” Religious affiliation plays a major role in society’s interpretation on euthanasia. Followers of God will declare that it is a person’s duty to live his or her life according to God’s plan, and that rejecting any part of His plan is rejecting His sovereignty. Euthanasia is seen as a “violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.” Essentially, giving up on life is considered on act of betrayal. If God’s plan entails a life of pain and suffering, a devout Catholic or Christian will follow it until the end because it will bring them closer to God. Killing another person, whether it be out of compassion or not, should never be tolerated for, as the Catholic church declares, “A true desire for euthanasia... is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love.”
Other opponents for euthanasia, including disability rights advocates, fear that physician-assisted suicide may lead to a slippery slope where the rights of the disabled are not held in high esteem or are even disregarded. Alison Davis, a twenty-eight year old with myelomeningocele spina bifida, fears that “Legislation of the type proposed [to withhold treatment from newborn handicapped babies] could well also lead to the de facto decriminalization of the act of killing a handicapped person of any age, just as it did in Hitler’s Germany.” Disability advocates will argue that in making euthanasia legal, it will eventually become non-voluntary. DREDF, a disability rights organization, makes clear the dangers in legalizing euthanasia. They explain that upon closer inspection, there are many reasons why the legalization of assisted suicide is a serious mistake. Supporters focus on superficial issues of choice and self-determination, but DREDF argues that it is crucial to look deeper. Legalizing assisted suicide would not increase choice and self-determination, they say, despite the assertions of its proponents. It would actually put forward real dangers that undermine genuine choice and control.
Both sides being taken into consideration, I believe that one’s personal right to die is as important as one’s right to live. Why should the government or religious affiliates control someone's life to the extent of saying when they can or cannot end it. Personally, if I was suffering from a terminal, deteriorating illness, I would want to escape from it. I would want to die with dignity, not cowardice as the Catholic church would put it, and I would fight for my right to do so. When the simple act of breathing in and out becomes too much to bear, why should a person be forced to suffer through life, even in its simplest form. A person should be respected if he or she desires to end their life before it is "their time," not judged by those who believe only god can decide when their time is. Individuals who believe that suffering will being them closer to god have a right to suffer, shouldn't those who want mercy be given a right to mercy?
I believe it is inhumane to let a person die a slow and extremely painful death when there is another alternative. I think Dr. Kevorkian is one hundred percent justified in his actions and did nothing out of malice, but out of respect from one human to another. To say that Dr. Kevorkian is leading us towards a slippery slope of what could become a neo-nazi ideology is completely absurd. People ask: Where do you draw the line? But as far as I can see no one is being killed against their will, we are not a society where the weak are tossed aside and their wishes are disregarded. Like Pieter Admiraal points out, “A clear moral and legal boundary can be drawn around the notion of consent. This notion of consent [is] based on the respect for the patient’s autonomy.” Physician assisted suicide is based completely around the wishes and consent of the terminally ill patient, not a maniacal doctor who wants to see the ill or handicapped die just to make the world a better place. I firmly agree with Dr. Kevorkian in his pursuits to make active euthanasia legal in the United States. As Admiraal puts is, and I’m sure Dr. Kevorkian would agree, “Active voluntary euthanasia is but one more way of delivering humane medical care.”
The right to die is as personal as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We, as human beings, should decide our own fate. We should have the freedom to escape from a life that we don’t desire to live. We should be respected when we say “Enough is enough.” Each individual should be given the authority to choose for themselves where they want to draw the line and be honored in their decision. Ultimately, no one should have power over the life and death of an individual other than he or she whose life, liberty and happiness aside, is at stake.
The Right To Die
“Death is not the greatest of ills: worse is to want to die and not be able to.” As Timothy Lace explains, euthanasia is best described as an act of mercy rather than murder. While the counter argument for euthanasia is to honor the preciousness of life, the argument for it seems much more valid: Every individual has a personal right to death. Those who strongly disagree with physician-assisted suicide have the option to not partake in it, while those who wish to end their suffering in a humane manner are trapped by both their illness and their inability to escape from it. Why should doctors, lawmakers, or anyone other than the individual have a say in his or her own death? Why should the pain and suffering of an individual be prolonged when their is an alternative? Why should we as human beings allow our rights to be infringed upon, especially when it comes to a decision as personal as death? The right to die, like the right to life, should be an unalienable right, one that cannot be transferred to another nor surrendered except by the person possessing it.
Proponents of euthanasia argue that each individual possesses one body, has a personal opinion on death, and therefore should choose when it is their time to surrender their body to the inevitable. Legality aside, when a person’s quality of life is compromised, the option to end life should be viewed as an “act of love.” Steve Lopez notes, in reference to the attempted murder of Beckie Wheeler by her husband, “If I ever get to where I don’t recognize the people I care about, I wouldn’t want to hang around. And I’d be grateful to any friend or family member who help me move on.” When a person is no longer themselves and cannot act on their own behalf due to a terminal illness, physician-assisted suicide can be considered an act of mercy. Euthanasia advocates maintain the stance that active voluntary euthanasia shows compassion towards the terminally ill, rather than inhumanely keep them alive to preserve life at all costs.
Chris Hill’s suicide letter is an incredibly powerful example of personal choice when it comes to the right to live or die. After a hang-gliding accident, Hill was paralyzed from the chest down, “more than three-quarters dead,” as he describes. “The Note,” his suicide letter, describes in detail his loss of dignity and self-respect and why he came to the decision to end his life. He writes in his letter that, “People kill animals to put them out of their misery if they’re suffering even a tiny part of what I had to put up with, but I was never given the choice of a dignified death.” One would argue that it is completely inhumane to give an animal a more dignified death than a human being who wishes nothing more than to be put out of their misery. As heartbreaking as his story is, the pain Hill suffered on a daily basis could only have been measured by him and ultimately it was his right to choose he to deal with it. As Chris Hill explains at the end of his letter, “Suicide is not a crime and I have the right not to be handled or treated against my will.”
Opponents of euthanasia will insist that taking someone’s life, whether it is their choice or not, is murder in the first degree, and immoral act in the eyes of God and society. The Catholic church’s Declaration on Euthanasia proclaims that “Human life is the basis of all goods and is the necessary source and condition of every human activity and of all society.” Religious affiliation plays a major role in society’s interpretation on euthanasia. Followers of God will declare that it is a person’s duty to live his or her life according to God’s plan, and that rejecting any part of His plan is rejecting His sovereignty. Euthanasia is seen as a “violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.” Essentially, giving up on life is considered on act of betrayal. If God’s plan entails a life of pain and suffering, a devout Catholic or Christian will follow it until the end because it will bring them closer to God. Killing another person, whether it be out of compassion or not, should never be tolerated for, as the Catholic church declares, “A true desire for euthanasia... is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love.”
Other opponents for euthanasia, including disability rights advocates, fear that physician-assisted suicide may lead to a slippery slope where the rights of the disabled are not held in high esteem or are even disregarded. Alison Davis, a twenty-eight year old with myelomeningocele spina bifida, fears that “Legislation of the type proposed [to withhold treatment from newborn handicapped babies] could well also lead to the de facto decriminalization of the act of killing a handicapped person of any age, just as it did in Hitler’s Germany.” Disability advocates will argue that in making euthanasia legal, it will eventually become non-voluntary. DREDF, a disability rights organization, makes clear the dangers in legalizing euthanasia. They explain that upon closer inspection, there are many reasons why the legalization of assisted suicide is a serious mistake. Supporters focus on superficial issues of choice and self-determination, but DREDF argues that it is crucial to look deeper. Legalizing assisted suicide would not increase choice and self-determination, they say, despite the assertions of its proponents. It would actually put forward real dangers that undermine genuine choice and control.
Both sides being taken into consideration, I believe that one’s personal right to die is as important as one’s right to live. Why should the government or religious affiliates control someone's life to the extent of saying when they can or cannot end it. Personally, if I was suffering from a terminal, deteriorating illness, I would want to escape from it. I would want to die with dignity, not cowardice as the Catholic church would put it, and I would fight for my right to do so. When the simple act of breathing in and out becomes too much to bear, why should a person be forced to suffer through life, even in its simplest form. A person should be respected if he or she desires to end their life before it is "their time," not judged by those who believe only god can decide when their time is. Individuals who believe that suffering will being them closer to god have a right to suffer, shouldn't those who want mercy be given a right to mercy?
I believe it is inhumane to let a person die a slow and extremely painful death when there is another alternative. I think Dr. Kevorkian is one hundred percent justified in his actions and did nothing out of malice, but out of respect from one human to another. To say that Dr. Kevorkian is leading us towards a slippery slope of what could become a neo-nazi ideology is completely absurd. People ask: Where do you draw the line? But as far as I can see no one is being killed against their will, we are not a society where the weak are tossed aside and their wishes are disregarded. Like Pieter Admiraal points out, “A clear moral and legal boundary can be drawn around the notion of consent. This notion of consent [is] based on the respect for the patient’s autonomy.” Physician assisted suicide is based completely around the wishes and consent of the terminally ill patient, not a maniacal doctor who wants to see the ill or handicapped die just to make the world a better place. I firmly agree with Dr. Kevorkian in his pursuits to make active euthanasia legal in the United States. As Admiraal puts is, and I’m sure Dr. Kevorkian would agree, “Active voluntary euthanasia is but one more way of delivering humane medical care.”
The right to die is as personal as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We, as human beings, should decide our own fate. We should have the freedom to escape from a life that we don’t desire to live. We should be respected when we say “Enough is enough.” Each individual should be given the authority to choose for themselves where they want to draw the line and be honored in their decision. Ultimately, no one should have power over the life and death of an individual other than he or she whose life, liberty and happiness aside, is at stake.